Abstract

Understanding and Improving Prisoner Reentry Outcomes. Mass imprisonment and mass prisoner reentry are two faces of the same coin. In a comprehensive and penetrating analysis, Daniel Mears and Joshua Cochran unravel the causes of this pressing problem, detail the challenges confronting released prisoners, and provide an evidence-based blueprint for successfully reintegrating offenders into the community. Scholarly yet accessible, this volume is essential reading-whether by academics or students-for anyone wishing to understand the chief policy issue facing American corrections. Francis T. Cullen. Distinguished Research Professor, University of Cincinnati. Prisoner Reentry is an engaging and comprehensive examination of prisoner reentry and how to improve public safety, well-being, and justice in the era of mass incarceration. Renowned authors Daniel P. Mears and Joshua C. Cochran investigate historical trends ...

Copyright

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

FOR INFORMATION:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

2455 Teller Road

Thousand Oaks, California 91320

E-mail: order@sagepub.com

SAGE Publications Ltd.

1 Oliver’s Yard

55 City Road

London EC1Y 1SP

United Kingdom

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area

Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044

India

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

3 Church Street

#10-04 Samsung Hub

Singapore 049483

Acquisitions Editor: Jerry Westby

Editorial Assistant: Laura Kirkhuff

Production Editor: Kelly DeRosa

Copy Editor: Lynn Weber

Typesetter: Hurix Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Proofreader: Sue Irwin

Indexer: Scott Smiley

Cover Designer: Scott Van Atta

Marketing Manager: Terra Schultz

Printed in the United States of America

Cataloging-in-publication data is available for this title from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-1-4833-1672-7

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

14 15 16 17 18 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

About the Authors

[Page xi]

Daniel P. Mearsis the Mark C. Stafford Professor of Criminology in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.

Joshua C. Cochranis assistant professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of South Florida.

[Page xii]

Preface

[Page xiii]

The idea for this book emerged from several different sources. Prison populations have grown by historically unprecedented amounts in recent decades. Accordingly, scholars increasingly have focused their attention on this growth. Some work has examined the factors that contributed to mass incarceration. Other work has focused on desistance from offending. One particular focus to which scholars have devoted substantial attention has been prisoner reentry. During the 1990s, researchers highlighted that much remained unknown about prisoners and individuals’ experiences both during and after incarceration. Previous scholarship focused on “reintegration.”

The newer generation of research has centered on the idea that reentry is a process. Inmates leave prison and experience a range of challenges, and they return to diverse and difficult social contexts. Concerns about recidivism are, of course, prominent. But the burgeoning literature on reentry also has highlighted that recidivism constitutes only one of a range of outcomes—there are others, such as unemployment, homelessness, and family reunification—that warrant attention from policy makers, practitioners, and scholars. This literature has also highlighted that a discussion of reentry is incomplete without an understanding of mass incarceration and the “punitive turn” in criminal justice.

Our own interest and involvement in the study of prisoner reentry stems from a number of experiences. Daniel has spent almost two decades studying the causes of crime, evaluating crime and criminal justice programs and policies, and investigating many aspects of reentry as a social problem. He brings with him a sociological background and an emphasis on the use and development of social theory to understand offending and responses to it. At the same time, he brings a strong appreciation for the unique insights that those “on the ground”—community residents, practitioners, law enforcement agents, and court and correctional system personnel—have for understanding criminal behavior and how to effectively respond to it. In part, this sensibility comes from his experience working with delinquent youth. It also comes from his evaluation research experiences, which served to highlight how theory can be developed from the ground up based on practitioner accounts as well as from the top down based on insights from social science.

For Joshua, the interest in reentry stems from immersion in research on inmate prison experiences and their consequences for behavior during and after incarceration. When he began conducting research on these experiences, it [Page xiv]became clear that far too little is known about what happens to inmates and the relative effectiveness of different types of sanctions. These lines of research contributed to his focus on reentry and the fascinating but troubling issues that attend reentry and, more broadly, punishment.

His interest stems, too, from personal experiences. His father worked in law enforcement and then as a clinical addictions counselor. As a result, Joshua grew up around homeless and drug-addicted populations, the bulk of whom had spent substantial time in jails and prisons. His father provided assistance to these individuals, mostly men, which involved helping them to find jobs as dishwashers, cooks, and custodians and directing them to social services and health care. However, many of the men remained addicted and unemployed and eventually returned to jail or prison. In most cases, one could point to personal failings as well as to social disadvantage as causes of these outcomes. What in particular, though, leads individuals to offend and to do so even after they have been incarcerated several times? Answering this question is central to advancing theories of offending and to improving public safety.

A somewhat more eclectic range of factors led Daniel to his interest in reentry. The interest stems in part from being cold, thinking about reality television shows, having worked at residential facilities, and collaborating with criminal justice practitioners. It stems, too, from a desire to advance criminological theory. An explanation is in order.

Although I (Daniel) grew up in New Hampshire, I can’t say that I enjoyed the cold. For that reason, I should have enjoyed Austin, Texas, where I undertook my graduate studies. I did. Even so, Austin was a cold place. Really. The university spared no expense when it came to air conditioning. I wore a sweatshirt on a regular basis, then would take it off when I went outside. I have never liked the cold, not in New Hampshire and not in Texas. My brother, David, could wear no gloves in freezing weather and his fingers would be fine at the end of a run. Mine would require hours of exposure to the wood stove before they would thaw, and that was after wearing huge, wind-resistant gloves. Whatever toughness I may have, it is not “cold tough.”

Why does that matter? When I worked in Washington, DC, at the Urban Institute, it was a rare day that I did not see homeless people. In the winter. In the cold. On the street. I had a long shirt, sweater, coat, hat, and more on. I would have worn a wrap-around electric warmer if such existed. The selfless part of me was, and remains, angry and pained by the scale of homelessness that exists in DC and in many metropolitan areas. The selfish part of me wondered how I would fare out on the street, in the cold.

What is the connection to reentry? When I arrived at the Urban Institute in 2001, policy makers, practitioners, and scholars were just beginning to come to grips with understanding the fall-out of the rapid increase in incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s. Jeremy Travis, in his capacity as the director of the National Institute of Justice, had special insight into the problem given his position and the research funded through his agency. He joined the Urban Institute and, along with a team of wonderful people, sought funding to support studies to illuminate a phenomenon—reentry—that was little understood. Basic questions remained largely unanswered. For example, who exactly comes out of prison? What are their experiences as they transition back into families [Page xv]and communities? Yes, recidivism studies existed. But little systematic theoretical or empirical research had been targeted toward understanding the profile of the ex-prisoner population, the challenges that they faced upon release, and how best to ensure not only that they stopped offending but also that they became contributing members of society.

I began to help with some of these studies and then led several. Around this time, “survival” television shows became popular. Individuals would be subject to challenges; if they could overcome the challenges, victory was theirs. It dawned on me that the challenges of reentry would not likely be overcome by your average, or even above-average, citizen. The challenges would daunt the most type A personalities out there.

A pause—when we talk about people in prison, it is important to recognize that they committed a crime. There were victims. Accordingly, the focus of this discussion and book does not require liking ex-prisoners or feeling sorry for them. Rather, all that is needed is a pragmatic mindset. If individuals consistently fail upon release from prison, then we as a society have a problem. Failure in a reentry context typically includes recidivism. That means more crime, more victims, and more cost. Such problems concern conservatives and liberals alike and, indeed, most everyone.

Back to ex-prisoners. As I reviewed scholarship about ex-prisoners, I thought about the youth at the facilities at which I had worked. They invariably had experienced hardships that, fortunately, most of us do not. The hardships included sexual and physical abuse, abandonment, mental illness and learning disabilities, neglect, and more. Most of these problems had gone unaddressed. It can be easier for us to feel more strongly about these issues when we contemplate children and young teenagers. These individuals, however, grow up, and their backgrounds do not magically disappear. That is why the profile of ex-prisoners can be so dismaying—serious family dysfunction, a history of abuse, limited education, spotty work histories, drug addiction, homelessness, residency in areas of concentrated poverty, and more.

Let us return, then, to the survival television show. Imagine you are a contestant. Your situation is as follows. You have no money. You have no more than an eighth grade education. You have a learning disability. You have a mental disorder. You have a lousy work history. In addition, you have a felony conviction, which means that you may not be able to vote, you may not be allowed to live in subsidized housing (where your family likely resides), and you are not allowed to work in certain occupations. An added bonus: During the previous two years, you received little to no rehabilitative programming, little to no education, and little to no training in or experience with the types of work or work skills that would assist you in a job search. Also, you likely have had to endure physical and verbal assaults and threats from inmates or officers. Contact with family and friends? No.

That is your reality television starting point. The goals that you must achieve if you want to win the prize? Find safe and affordable housing, secure gainful employment, and obtain treatment for a drug abuse problem.

When I first framed the issue to myself this way, the problem of reentry took on a new cast. Years earlier, I had been in the Peace Corps. That involved doing without the typical supports that most of us enjoy. It was challenging, but I had [Page xvi]friends, some funding, training, and everybody seemed focused on helping you. Even so, I could hardly have been described as a success story for the Peace Corps. This experience came immediately on the heels of trying to find my way in college. In high school, everything came easily, but college was a different story. I struggled, and my ego took a beating. In the end, though, I bounced back from these experiences, bruised but wiser and stronger. Years later, sitting at my desk in D.C., I reflected on my past experiences and wondered what life would be like to be confronted with constant, repeated failure. Never succeeding but instead failing again and again, with no outside supports to help you.

I thought, too, about being cold. It turns out that the first few weeks after release from prison are among the hardest. Not surprisingly—given the profile of the typical inmate and the challenges faced during reentry—many ex-prisoners become homeless. And homeless people not infrequently live in the cold.

So, in our television survival show, we begin with many deficits, experience threats and violence, find ourselves out in the cold with few if any financial or social resources. And yet we are tasked, if we wish to win, with finding employment, housing, and treatment. That is a contest that many of us would lose. Remarkably, though, this situation confronts hundreds of thousands of people each year as they leave prison. It is not reality television; it is, rather, real life.

The consequences of failing to address this situation means that, in the end, society loses through more crime, victimization, homelessness, and cycles of violence and dysfunction within families and communities. Ultimately, society pays in a myriad of ways for this failure. Can we build our way out of this situation through more incarceration? The answer from research appears to be a resounding no. Are there solutions? Yes.

This book is motivated by the critical importance of reducing crime and the suffering and costs that accompany it and by the fact that many opportunities exist to create smarter, more effective systems of justice. We do not advocate a “silver-bullet” approach to improving reentry. Indeed, we argue against a one-solution mindset. In its place, we advocate capitalizing on a wide range of opportunities to improve the criminal justice system, corrections, communities, and the ways that we sanction and intervene with individuals who go to and leave prison. There is, at the same time, the opportunity to advance criminological theory on offending, families and communities, crime policy changes, criminal justice processing, and corrections. Indeed, the study of reentry offers many different ways to develop and test theory, as we will discuss. Theory sometimes can be bad. It can put blinders up and too narrowly delimit our focus. Even so, even the most pragmatic views from those “on the ground” implicitly involve recourse to theoretical accounts of reality. Indeed, for that very reason, incorporation of the insights of the individuals who work in or shape the criminal justice system is essential for creating more accurate accounts of crime and justice.

I worked at a residential facility that housed delinquent youth, and I have worked for years evaluating programs and policies designed and implemented by well-meaning individuals who strive to promote public safety and to help people. These experiences inform the research that I have undertaken, my views about the use and development of theory, and the importance of recognizing and incorporating the insights of the individuals on the ground into research [Page xvii]and policy-making efforts. They result, too, in a sensibility that places a premium on viewing crime and justice from different vantage points. When I conducted my first study on sentencing, I interviewed prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys. Almost invariably, it was the individuals who had worked in all three of these capacities who seemed to offer the most balanced, insightful views about problems in criminal justice and solutions to them. When we view the prisoner reentry landscape from diverse perspectives there are, yes, many problems, but there also are many solutions, ones that go well beyond building more prisons.

To identify and implement these solutions will require considerable effort by many different groups. That includes the public, who ultimately determine how government operates; students, who will go on to make the world a better place; policy makers and practitioners, who work to create approaches to improving the criminal justice and correctional systems; and scholars, who strive to understand and explain crime, criminal justice processing, correctional systems, and what can be done to improve public safety and the administration of justice. All of these groups will be needed to solve more effectively and efficiently the problems associated with crime and reentry.

We owe a debt of gratitude to Jerry Westby for encouraging this effort. Without his prompting and guidance, there would be no book! Jerry, thank you. We owe thanks as well to Denise Simon and the reviewers. They provided thoughtful suggestions that greatly helped to improve the book. We owe thanks, too, to many others. Emily, Eli, and Ashley provided no end of enthusiasm and support. They are tolerant (fortunately), curious, and wonderful people. Eli every day teaches Dan more than Dan teaches him, which is the way it should be. Our thanks to Meghan Ogle, who provided research assistance in developing the tables for Chapter 9. We thank the Sentencing Project for permission to use data from their 2012 report by Christopher Uggen, Sarah Shannon, and Jeff Manza on felon disenfranchisement to create Figure 2.4. Throughout the book, we have drawn on arguments or ideas that we have touched on in our other works. The use accords with author copyright rights, but we nonetheless want to acknowledge and thank the following presses and organizations for publishing the original works: the American Correctional Association; Blackwell Synergy; the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Elsevier; Oxford University Press; Sage; Taylor and Francis; the University of California Press; the University of Houston Law Center; the Urban Institute; and Wiley-Blackwell. Not least, we thank our colleagues, who have provided support, insight, and more.

[Page xviii]

Notes

6 The figure presents thirty-five countries from a list of 222 reported in Walmsley (2013); these were selected to illustrate variation in world incarceration rates. For all 222 countries, the United States still has the highest incarceration rate. Estimates for each country typically spanned the 2011 through 2013 period. Countries report incarceration figures for varying time periods, necessarily creating some imprecision in making comparisons for any given year. In general, the rank ordering of countries by rate of incarceration does not change greatly from one year to the next. Updated estimates can be found at the International Centre for Prison Studies’ website (http://www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-brief).

94 Alongside of large-scale trends such as mass incarceration lie many micro-level and meso-level changes that occurred among state and local criminal justice jurisdictions. Understanding such variation is of interest in its own right (Garland 2013). However, it is important work, too, for identifying specific areas where the most gains in effective and efficient processing and sanctioning can be obtained.

[Page 263]6 That insight is one that flows from system analytic perspectives (Meadows 2008).

7 Heilbroner (1990) has provided a compelling account of ways in which law enforcement behavior is affected in part by their understanding of how the courts will respond to arrests for certain types of illegal behavior.

88 See, however, Mears and Stafford (2002). Some causes are asymmetric. In such cases, an increase in a cause may produce more of a problem, but a decrease in the cause will have no effect on the problem. For example, if we increase our tooth brushing, we reduce the number of cavities that we will get. However, once a cavity exists due to a lack of tooth brushing, no amount of increased tooth brushing will cause the cavity to go away.

117 The account involves arguments that can be found in many scholarly analyses of mass incarceration, including those by Blumstein (1997), Cullen and Gendreau (2000), Garland (2001), Gottschalk (2006), Simon (2007, 2012), Oliver and Marion (2008), Welsh and Harris (2008), Blomberg and Lucken (2010), Mears (2010), and others.

1 Here we draw in part on Mears and Cochran (2014), a chapter entitled “Who Goes to Prison?” In that chapter, as in other works (e.g., Lynch and Sabol 2001; Travis et al. 2001; Petersilia 2003, 2005; Western 2006; Useem and Piehl 2008; Gottschalk 2006, 2011; Raphael 2011; Carson and Sabol 2012; Mears and Cochran 2012; Visher and Travis 2012), the focus centers on the profile of the “typical” inmate. In the current chapter, our focus is less on providing a complete description of prisoner characteristics. These other accounts, including Mears and Cochran (2014), provide such information in comprehensive detail. Instead, we attend more to identifying why inmate characteristics are relevant to a discussion of reentry.

[Page 274]22 According to Streiner and Cairney (2013:304), the ROC analysis “dates back to World War II and the merging of signal detection theory with the development of radar.” They have provided a useful historical example of the issue of trade-offs with prediction:

When the gain of the radar set (comparable to the volume control on a radio) is at zero, no signal (in this case representing an enemy plane) is detected. Increasing the gain lets more signals in, but it also increases the amount of noise that is picked up and possibly misinterpreted as a true signal. At low levels of gain, the noise is very weak and unlikely to be falsely labelled, but at the same time, only very strong signals (very large or close planes, to continue the example) are detected and many true signals are missed. As the gain is turned up even further, weaker signals are picked up, but so is more noise (things that can seem like aircraft but are not, such as rain clouds or a flock of birds). At some point, further increases become counterproductive, in that the noise (false positives) begins to outweigh the signals (true positives). (Pp. 304–305.)

38 See, for example, Jaruzelski et al. (2013:5). Precise estimates of investment in research and development, and in efforts to monitor and improve operations, can vary because of differences in how companies treat, for tax and other purposes, research expenditures (Chan et al. 2002).

53 Bushway and Apel (2012) have described a similar idea in discussing how to identify which inmates are unlikely to recidivate. A good “signal” is one that requires an individual to work hard to show (consciously or not) a change in his or her likelihood of offending.

Boessen, Adam, and ElizabethCauffman. 2013 . “Moving From the Neighborhood to the Cellblock: The Impact of Youth’s Neighborhoods on Prison Misconduct.” Crime and Delinquency (forthcoming).

Bonczar, Thomas P. 2011 . National Corrections Reporting Program: Time Served in State Prison, By Offense, Release Type, Sex, and Race. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available online at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbde-tail&iid=2045 (accessed April 10, 2014 ).

Cobbina, Jennifer E., Beth M.Huebner, and Mark T.Berg. 2012 . “Men, Women, and Postrelease Offending: An Examination of the Nature of the Link Between Relational Ties and Recidivism.” Crime and Delinquency58:331–361.

Cochran, Joshua C. 2014 . “Breaches in the Wall: Imprisonment, Social Support, and Recidivism.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency51:200–229.

Comfort, Megan L. 2008 . Doing Time Together: Love and Family in the Shadow of the Prison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[Page 288]Compton, Wilson M., Yonette F.Thomas, Frederick S.Stinson, and Bridget F.Grant. 2007 . “Prevalence, Correlates, Disability, and Comorbidity of DSM-IV Drug Abuse and Dependence in the United States: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.” Archives of General Psychiatry64:566–576.

Cullen, Francis T., and Cheryl L.Jonson. 2011 . “Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs.” Pp. 293–344 in Crime and Public Policy, edited by James Q.Wilson and JoanPetersilia. New York: Oxford University Press.

Danish, Steven J., and Bradley J.Antonides. 2013 . “The Challenges of Reintegration for Service Members and Their Families.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry83:550–558.

Davis, Robert C., Barbara E.Smith, and BruceTaylor. 2003 . “Increasing the Proportion of Domestic Violence Arrests That Are Prosecuted: A Natural Experiment in Milwaukee.” Criminology and Public Policy2:263–282.

DeFina, Robert, and LanceHannon. 2010 . “For Incapacitation, There Is No Time Like the Present: The Lagged Effects of Prisoner Reentry on Property and Violent Crime Rates.” Social Science Research39:1004–1014.

Ewald, Alex, and ChristopherUggen. 2012 . “The Collateral Effect of Imprisonment on Prisoners, Their Families, and Communities.” Pp. 83–103 in The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, edited by JoanPetersilia and Kevin R.Reitz. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fagan, Abigail A. 2013 . “Family-Focused Interventions to Prevent Juvenile Delinquency: A Case Where Science and Policy Can Find Common Ground.” Criminology and Public Policy12:617–650.

George, Erin. 2010 . A Woman Doing Life: Notes From a Prison for Women. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gibbons, John J., and Nicholas de B.Katzenbach. 2006 . Confronting Confinement: A Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Gibbs, Jack P. 1989 . “Three Perennial Issues in the Sociology of Deviance.” Pp. 179–198 in Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime: Problems and Prospects, edited by Steven F.Messner, Marvin D.Krohn, and Allen E.Liska. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Gilliam, Franklin D., Jr., and ShantoIyengar. 2005 . “Super-Predators or Victims of Societal Neglect? Framing Effects in Juvenile Crime Coverage.” Pp. 148–166 in The Framing of American Politics, edited by KarenCallaghan and FraukeSchnell. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Gilliam, Franklin D., Jr., and ShantoIyengar. 2000 . “Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local Television News on the Viewing Public.” American Journal of Political Science44:560–573.

Giordano, Peggy C., Ryan D.Schroeder, and Stephen A.Cernkovich. 2007 . “Emotions and Crime over the Life Course: A Neo-Meadian Perspective on Criminal Continuity and Change.” American Journal of Sociology112:1603–1661.

Gottschalk, Marie. 2013 . “The Carceral State and the Politics of Punishment.” Pp. 205–241 in The Sage Handbook of Punishment and Society, edited by JonathanSimon and RichardSparks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gottschalk, Marie. 2011 . “The Past, Present, and Future of Mass Incarceration in the United States.” Criminology and Public Policy10:483–504.

Gottschalk, Marie. 2006 . The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Greenwood, Peter W., and SusanTurner. 2012 . “Probation and Other Noninstitutional Treatment.” Pp. 723–747 in The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice, edited by Barry C.Feld and Donna M.Bishop. New York: Oxford University Press.

Greenwood, Peter W., and SusanTurner. 2011 . “Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice.” Pp. 88–129 in Crime and Public Policy, edited by James Q.Wilson and JoanPetersilia. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hanson, R. Karl, Kelly E.Morton, and Andrew J. R.Harris. 2003 . “Sexual Offender Recidivism Risk: What We Know and What We Need to Know.” Annals of New York Academy of Sciences989:154–166.

Harding, David J., Jeffrey D.Morenoff, and Claire W.Herbert. 2013 . “Home Is Hard to Find: Neighborhoods, Institutions, and the Residential Trajectories of Returning [Page 293]Prisoners.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science647:214–236.

Harding, Richard W. 2012 . “Regulating Prison Conditions: Some International Comparisons.” Pp. 432–460 in The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, edited by JoanPetersilia and Kevin R.Reitz. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hayes, Susan C. 2002 . “Early Intervention or Early Incarceration? Using a Screening Test for Intellectual Disability in the Criminal Justice System.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities15:120–128.

Heilbroner, David. 1990 . Rough Justice: Days and Nights of a Young D.A. New York: Random House.

[Page 294]Hipp, John R., JoanPetersilia, and SusanTurner. 2010 . “Parolee Recidivism in California: The Effect of Neighborhood Context and Social Service Agency Characteristics.” Criminology48:947–979.

Kelly, William R., Tammy S.Macy, and Daniel P.Mears. 2005 . “Juvenile Court Referrals in Texas: An Assessment of Criminogenic Needs and the Gap Between Needs and Services.” The Prison Journal85:467–489.

LeBel, Thomas P., RosBurnett, ShaddMaruna, and ShawnBushway. 2008 . “The ‘Chicken and Egg’ of Subjective and Social Factors in Desistance From Crime.” European Journal of Criminology5:130–158.

LeBel, Thomas, and ShaddMaruna. 2012 . “Life on the Outside: Transitioning From Prison to the Community.” Pp. 657–683 in The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, edited by JoanPetersilia and Kevin R.Reitz. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lee, Hedwig, Lauren C.Porter, and MeganComfort. 2014 . “Consequences of Family Member Incarceration: Impacts on Civic Participation and Perceptions of the Legitimacy and Fairness of Government.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science651:44–73.

Lerman, Amy E. 2013 . The Modern Prison Paradox: Politics, Punishment, and Social Community. New York: Cambridge University Press.

MacKenzie, Doris L. 2012 . “The Effectiveness of Corrections-Based Work and Academic and Vocational Educational Programs.” Pp. 492–520 in The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, edited by JoanPetersilia and Kevin R.Reitz. New York: Oxford University Press.

MacKenzie, Doris L. 2006 . What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McKenzie, Karen, AmandaMichie, AjaMurray, and CharleneHales. 2012 . “Screening for Offenders With an Intellectual Disability: The Validity of the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire.” Research in Developmental Disabilities33:791–795.

McPherson, Miller, LynnSmith-Lovin, and James M.Cook. 2001 . “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology27:415–444.

Meade, Benjamin, BenjaminSteiner, MatthewMakarios, and LawrenceTravis. 2013 . “Estimating a Dose-Response Relationship Between Time Served in Prison and Recidivism.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency50:525–550.

Mears, Daniel P., and JulieMestre. 2012 . “Prisoner Reentry, Employment, Signaling, and the Better Identification of Desisters: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Criminology and Public Policy11:5–15.

Mears, Daniel P., MatthewPloeger, and MarkWarr. 1998 . “Explaining the Gender Gap in Delinquency: Peer Influence and Moral Evaluations of Behavior.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency35:251–266.

Monahan, Kathryn C., AshaGoldweber, and ElizabethCauffman. 2011 . “The Effects of Visitation on Incarcerated Juvenile Offenders: How Contact With the Outside Impacts Adjustment on the Inside.” Law and Human Behavior35:143–151.

Morash, Merry, Robin N.Haarr, and LilaRucker. 1994 . “A Comparison of Programming for Women and Men in U.S. Prisons in the 1980s.” Crime and Delinquency40: 197–221.

Morris, Norval. 2002 . Maconochie’s Gentlemen: The Story of Norfolk Island and the Roots of Modern Prison Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

Morris, Norval, and David J.Rothman, eds. 1995 . The Oxford History of the Prison. New York: Oxford University Press.

Petersilia, Joan. 2005 . “From Cell to Society: Who Is Returning Home?” Pp. 15–49 in Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America, edited by JeremyTravis and ChristyVisher. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Piquero, Alex R., David P.Farrington, and AlfredBlumstein. 2007 . Key Issues in Criminal Career Research: New Analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. New York: Cambridge Studies in Criminology.

Provine, Doris M. 2007 . Unequal Under Law: Race in the War on Drugs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pryor, Marie, and Douglas E.Thompkins. 2013 . “The Disconnect Between Education and Social Opportunity for the Formerly Incarcerated.” American Journal of Criminal Justice38:457–479.

Ramirez, Mark D. 2013 . “Punitive Sentiment.” Criminology51:329–364.

Raphael, Steven. 2011 . “Incarceration and Prisoner Reentry in the United States.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science635:192–215.

Raphael, Steven, and Michael A.Stoll. 2009 . “Why Are So Many Americans in Prison?” Pp. 27–72 in Do Prisons Make Us Safer? The Benefits and Costs of the Prison Boom, edited by StevenRaphael and Michael A.Stoll. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Rose, Dina R., and Todd R.Clear. 2003 . “Incarceration, Reentry, and Social Capital: Social Networks in the Balance.” Pp. 313–341 in Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities, edited by JeremyTravis and M.Waul. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Siennick, Sonja E., Daniel P.Mears, and William D.Bales. 2013 . “Here and Gone: Anticipation and Separation Effects of Prison Visits on Inmate Infractions.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency50:417–444.

Silver, Nate. 2012 . The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail—But Some Don’t. New York: Penguin.

Simon, Jonathan. 2012 . “Mass Incarceration: From Social Policy to Social Problem.” Pp. 23–52 in The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, edited by JoanPetersilia and Kevin R.Reitz. New York: Oxford University Press.

Slobogin, Christopher. 2002 . The Effects of Prison Sentences and Intermediate Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and Individual Differences. Ontario: Solicitor General of Canada.

Smith, Peter S. 2006 . “The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief History and Review of the Literature.” Crime and Justice34:441–528.

Snodgrass, Matthew G., Arjan A. J.Blokland, AmeliaHaviland, PaulNieuwbeerta, and Daniel S.Nagin. 2011 . “Does the Time Cause the Crime? An Examination of the Relationship Between Time Served and Reoffending in the Netherlands.” Criminology49:1149–1194.

Stafford, Mark C., and Daniel P.Mears. 2014 . “Causation, Theory, and Policy in the Social Sciences.” Chapter in Emerging Trends in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, edited by Robert A.Scott and Stephen M.Kosslyn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley (forthcoming).

Stafford, Mark C., and MarkWarr. 1993 . “A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency30:123–135.

Stahler, Gerald J., JeremyMennis, StevenBelenko, Wayne N.Welsh, and Matthew L.Hiller. 2013 . “Predicting Recidivism for Released State Prisoners: Examining the Influence of Individual and Neighborhood Characteristics and Spatial Contagion on the Likelihood of Reincarceration.” Criminal Justice and Behavior40:690–711.

Streiner, David L., and John H.Cairney. 2013 . “What’s Under the ROC? An Introduction to Receiver Operating Characteristics Curves.” Pp. 304–317 in A Guide for the Statistically Perplexed, edited by David L.Streiner. Toronto: Canadian Psychiatric Association.

Stuntz, William J. 2011 . The Collapse of American Criminal Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Uggen, Christopher, JeffManza, and AngelaBehrens. 2004 . “‘Less than Average Citizen’: Stigma, Role Transition, and the Civic Reintegration of Convicted Felons.” Pp. 261–293 in After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration, edited by ShaddMaruna and RossImmarigeon. Cullompton, UK: Willan.

Uggen, Christopher, and SaraWakefield. 2005 . “Young Adults Reentering the Community From the Criminal Justice System: The Challenge.” Pp. 114–144 in On Your Own Without a Net, edited by Wayne D.Osgood, Michael E.Foster, ConstanceFlanagan, and Gretchen P.Ruth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Uggen, Christopher, SaraWakefield, and BruceWestern. 2005 . “Work and Family Perspectives on Reentry” Pp. 209–243 in Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America, edited by JeremyTravis and ChristyVisher. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Unnever, James D. 2014 . “Race, Crime, and Public Opinion.” Pp. 70–106 in The Oxford Handbook of Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration, edited by Sandra M.Bucerius and Michael H.Tonry. New York: Oxford University Press.

Vieno, Alessio, MicheleRoccato, and SilviaRusso. 2013 . “Is Fear of Crime Mainly Social and Economic Insecurity in Disguise? A Multilevel Multinational Analysis.” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology23:519–535.

Villettaz, Patrice, MartinKillias, and IsabelZoder. 2006 . The Effects of Custodial versus Non-Custodial Sentences on Re-offending: A Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge. Report to the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. Lausanne, Switzerland: University of Lausanne, Institute of Criminology and Criminal Law.

Visher, Christy A., and JeremyTravis. 2012 . “The Characteristics of Prisoners Returning Home and Effective Reentry Programs and Policies.” Pp. 684–706 in The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, edited by JoanPetersilia and Kevin R.Reitz. New York: Oxford University Press.

Visher, Christy A., and JeremyTravis. 2011 . “Life on the Outside: Returning Home After Incarceration.” The Prison Journal9:102S–119S.

Wildeman, Christopher. 2014 . “Parental Incarceration, Child Homelessness, and the Invisible Consequences of Mass Imprisonment.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science651:74–96.

Wilson, David B., Catherine A.Gallagher, and Doris L.MacKenzie. 2003 . “A Meta-Analysis of Corrections-Based Education, Vocation, and Work Programs for Adult Offenders.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency37:347–368.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987 . The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[Page 312]Windzio, Michael. 2006 . “Is There a Deterrent Effect of Pains of Imprisonment? The Impact of ‘Social Costs’ of First Incarceration on the Hazard Rate of Recidivism.” Punishment and Society8:341–364.